LILLEY: Trudeau wants Norman affair to disappear, but it won't

Justin Trudeau’s Liberals really don’t want to talk about the Mark Norman trial and they are doing what they can to stop the media from talking about it as well.

At the start of Question Period on Monday the Conservatives asked six questions in English on the Norman trial and the fiasco that surrounds it and had five of those questions answered in French.

They also had ministers that were not responsible for the prosecution of Norman answering the questions.

When Conservative House Leader Candice Bergen stood up and asked if the prime minister would appear before the Commons defence committee to answer questions, the minister of national revenue stood to answer.

In French.

First off, what does the minister in charge of revenue have to do with the attempted prosecution of one of Canada’s highest ranking military members?

The answer is of course nothing.

Why is she answering in French? To kill the chances that the English TV and radio stations will use what is said in their broadcasts. The normal protocol in the House of Commons is that the question is answered in the language it is asked in.

David Lametti, the attorney general and man in charge of this file, could have answered in either language. Instead the unilingual Francophone with no connection to the case, Diane Lebouthillier was put up to answer.

Her response was to say any claim of political interference in the Norman trial is false.

The Liberals are desperate to get that message out and are relying on a single quote from Norman’s defence lawyer Marie Henein who said after the charges were stayed that the decision was independent of political interference.

“The decision to stay this prosecution was discretion exercised by prosecutors,” she said.

That is what the Liberals want you to remember, not her previous claim that the prosecution was politically motivated.

Henein not only claimed political interference in the prosecution before the charges were stayed, she and her team presented emails showing the Privy Council Office coordinating trial strategy with the prosecution.

“So much for the independence of the PPSC,” declared Judge Heather Perkins-McVey at the time.

There were also claims of Trudeau’s office coaching witnesses, withholding key documents vital for the trial including Norman’s own emails.

“How is it that Gerald Butts got his old texts and emails within days of quitting, but Vice-Admiral Norman has waited a year and a half?” asked New Democrat MP Tracey Ramsey in the House.

In response to all of this the Liberals are like the scene in the Wizard of Oz where you are told to ignore the man behind the curtain and believe their claims rather than what you see with your own eyes.

Having been caught trying to interfere with a criminal trial with SNC-Lavalin, where they tried to help a friendly company escape charges, the Liberals can’t afford to being found guilty in the court of public opinion in another case of judicial interference.

This time to punish someone they don’t like.

So they repeat the line over and over again that the decision to stay charges was made independent of the government and political consideration.

That doesn’t mean the claim that the prosecution of Mark Norman began as a political witch-hunt isn’t also true.

We’ve seen enough to know Trudeau and his office wanted Norman to go to trial and be found guilty.

There is more to this story, even if Trudeau doesn’t want you to see it.